The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, upheld the conviction of multiple accused persons in a murder case, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies do not necessarily discredit their credibility. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, delivered the verdict while hearing a batch of criminal appeals arising from a common judgment rendered by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Case No. 175/2016.
Case Background
The case revolves around the brutal murder of Ganesh Bharti on March 31, 2016, in Patharra village, Durg district. The prosecution alleged that the incident stemmed from a minor altercation between the complainant party and the accused. The conflict escalated when the accused, armed with deadly weapons such as bamboo clubs, baseball bats, and a farsa (a type of axe), attacked the victim and his family members.
According to the prosecution, the deceased and his relatives were chased by the accused, who were part of an unlawful assembly with a common intent to commit murder. While the complainants managed to escape by jumping a boundary wall, the deceased, Ganesh Bharti, was caught and mercilessly assaulted, leading to his death. His body was later discovered near a school toilet, bearing multiple deep injuries.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The appellants, represented by advocates Ms. Swati Verma, Mr. Virendra Verma, and Ms. Laxmin Todey, argued that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They contended that:
The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness linking them to the murder.
The prosecution’s case was marred by contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses.
The absence of forensic evidence linking most of the weapons to the crime weakened the prosecution’s claims.
Some of the accused had alibis proving they were not present at the crime scene.
On the other hand, the State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Government Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel and objector’s counsel Mr. Jitendra Gupta, strongly opposed the appeals, asserting that:
The presence of the accused in an unlawful assembly was established beyond doubt.
The forensic report confirmed that human blood was found on some of the weapons seized.
The injuries on the deceased were consistent with the weapons recovered from the accused.
Witnesses had consistently identified the accused and detailed the sequence of events leading to the murder.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court, after thoroughly examining the evidence and arguments, dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions under Sections 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapons) and 302 read with 149 (Murder committed by an unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court observed:
“Trivial discrepancies in the testimonies of eyewitnesses do not erode their credibility. It is natural for witnesses to have minor inconsistencies in their accounts, especially in cases involving multiple assailants and high-stress situations. What is important is the consistency in their core narrative.”
The bench referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court, particularly in Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar (2021), which emphasized that minor inconsistencies do not vitiate otherwise credible evidence.
The Court also dismissed the defense of alibi presented by some of the accused, stating that the burden of proving an alibi rests on the accused and that oral testimonies without documentary proof cannot establish an alibi.
The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 each for the murder charge, and two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹500 each for rioting.
